10 Most Hated Movies of 2011: Jack and Jill

Source Code

"I was very excited to see this movie because I was such a fan of Moon (also directed by Duncan Jones). But Source Code fell short. It felt like Jones was trying too hard, and the film became overly complicated and commercial. And honestly, what happened to the poor guy that Jake Gyllenhaal took the body from? Where is he at? ?Simon Lutrin"

Worst part: They never explained what happened to the dude who's body Gyllenhaal took.

Redeeming feature: Decent premise, I guess.

 

So, this moron is asking what happened to the guy who Gyllenhaal inhabits in the Source Code scenario, even though it is clearly and continually explained that the software allows the user (Gyllenhaal) to inhabit someone's body for the last 8 minutes of their life.



HE DIED IN THE EXPLOSION, YOU DICKHEAD.

Source Code is an excellent little thriller, and demonstrates that Jones has real storytelling nous, moreso than Moon ever did. It's extremely well constructed and thrilling throughout without resorting to anything truly OTT. It's The Lady Vanishes meets Inception I guess, and it's a lot of fun. This guy's other complaint, that Jones is "going commercial" is similarly asinine - it's an intelligent film that had marketable assets, and that's how filmmakers often get to fund their more personal projects. He could have signed on for The Wolverine or got the Man of Steel job, but instead he's gone for something that is still kinda low-key and high-concept, and this idiot is still going to pillory him for it? Get real.

 

And also clearly and continually allows for the possibility that that is not what the software actually does.

 

This. The movie clearly states that Colter Stevens keeps Sean Fentress' body at the end of the movie.

 

Nevermind you gotta be kidding with this list. This is a movie I actually liked. Next up Captain American because it had Nazi's in it and then Mission Impossible because Tom Cruse wears lifts in his shoes. I call BS on the rest of the list.

 

But the reviewer's asking where the other guy's gone. He's dead in one reality (and if he's not, then what's the issue? Everything's cool.) and has been erased in the other. It's not the loose end and/or movie-crippling flaw that this guy thinks it is, seems more like an excuse for a guy to rag on a film when he doesn't actually know what his problem with the film is.

 

I've got to agree with Rox. Except in very narrow pockets, very few, if any of these films are "hated." Most were actually quite popular, and the few that weren't may have been terrible (Green Lantern) but they didn't provoke any special ire. They were just run of the mill duds. Let alone any of them being "most" hated relative to the other offerings of this year.

In fact, I don't know that there's really a way to categorize this list outside of something extremely general like "a smattering of films I happen to dislike."

 

Well, now we're seeing "commercial" as a complaint here, so apparently films that are designed to make money at some point in their lives are horrible, especially with their dark intent of actually perpetuating the industry. Shameful behaviour.

 

You're right, it's not a loose end -- the problem that I think many of us have is that it's a serious moral issue with which the movie doesn't actually engage in any way.

 

That's true, and that in itself is more of a criticism than what the guy in the original quote asks.

On the other hand, wouldn't the guy die if not for Stevens' interference? And by the same token, I'm not sure that moral issue is all that far removed from what is being done to the Stevens character anyway. It's not as if the film presents this whole scenario as something that is just kosher and let that be the end of it. Perhaps if it had addressed that issue directly then yeah, it would be a better film, but the absence of it hardly prevents the film from functioning on all levels.

 

Oh, I agree with that for sure. I don't hate this movie at all. I think it was a solid thriller and one of the better movies of the year, and certainly far from a sophomore slump for Jones.

 

Horrible Bosses

"Despite my better judgment, I saw this movie. I'm a huge Charlie Day fan after watching It's Always Sunny for the past few years, and I figured I'd give Horrible Bosses a shot. It's horrible for a number of reasons.

For starters, the movie suffers from a preposterous premise: It pits a trio of disgruntled members of the middle-class workforce against their abominable bosses, and the group decides the only option they're left with to better their lives is to off their bosses. The characters aren't likable enough for me to want them to succeed, and frankly, the bosses seem more interesting than the main characters are. I kept waiting to laugh at this supposed comedy, but ended up feeling weird and wishing I'd seen something else. ?Christina Bonnington

Worst part: Somehow it managed a 7.1 on IMDB, so thousands of you are going to unwittingly watch this thinking it's decent and be left wishing you had 98 minutes of your life back.

Redeeming feature: Jennifer Aniston looks pretty hot, I guess."

 

I have decided that I will watch anything that stars Charlie Day and Jason Sudekis. Anything. If they were starring in the new Twilight movie, I would go see it. Each is funny on their own, but put them together and its gold.

 

I thought Horrible Bosses did a great job marrying the weird murder-centric kind of black comedy with the modern Hangover style of humor. And were the bosses more interesting? Yes. That's a strength of the movie. They're interesting because they're such ridiculous & awful people, while the main trio are essentially everymen (one of whom is the terrific Charlie Day for crying out loud - far from uninteresting).

 

The fact that the person who wrote that summary thinks the premise is preposterous just tells me that he hasn't worked a middle class job in a very long time.

 

I thought this one was better than Hangover 2. I really enjoyed, I thought it was a low key hit. Really funny. I don't think the critic you are getting these from can relate to the common man. It sounds like this person expects every movie to be the best movie ever made.

 

I haven't seen Horrible Bosses, but Farrell's headpiece alone makes it automatically funnier than the shamelessly exploitative The Hangover Part II. (Boy do I hate sequels that do the exact same plot as the first film).

 

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

"As a fan of the first Transformers movie and a critic of the second, I went into this film with decently high hopes. However, after two hours of watching shiny metal smashing, flying and crashing across the screen, my threshold for explosions and cheesy dialog ran out and I found myself assuming (and hoping) that each of the successive robo-battles marked the merciful ending of the movie. They weren't. After 120 of the film's excessive 154 minutes of explosions, the only thing I took away was the desire for a pitch-black room and some earplugs. ?Michael Lennon

Worst part: Could have ended about an hour before it did.

Redeeming feature: Although there were far too many, some of the 'splosions were pretty sweet."

 

In Time

"I love moody, atmospheric sci-fi films that make you ponder big ideas. I also enjoy schlocky sci-fi thrillers filled with killer space bugs that explode into goo. What I can't stand: A preachy movie that takes an interesting premise and turns it into a series of thumb-sucking observations and weak one-liners. And that's just what In Time did.

The movie's "time is money" story couldn't have been more timely (no pun intended). In Time hit theaters as the Occupy movement ? with its colorful railing about the haves and the have-nots ? was dominating the headlines. Sadly, writer/director Andrew Niccol (Gattaca) delivered a slight movie I found just about as irritating as occupiers' jazz hands or a "human megaphone." ?Lewis Wallace

Worst part: Dumbed-down moralism and nearly nonstop puns about time.

Redeeming feature: Ticking digital timers embedded in forearms are pretty cool, even if the concept borrows from Logan's Run."

 

Jack and Jill

"This review is hard to write for me. I love Adam Sandler, but seriously?

Jack and Jill's central premise was played out when Martin Lawrence was in Undercover Brother, but now Sandler decides to jumps on the "throw on a fat suit and make fart jokes" bandwagon? Say it ain't so, Adam!

I remember his Saturday Night Live work, and it was pure comedic gold. I grew up with Billy Madison and The Water Boy, but Jack and Jill was just garbage. Plus, Katie Holmes comes back to the silver screen with this? Katie, fire your agent if you haven't already. I expect Colombia Pictures to pay for my psychiatry bill for ruining my childhood memories. ?Michael Salvador

Worst part: Seeing Adam Sandler in a fat suit.

Redeeming feature: I enjoyed Sandler's use of kids in the movie. Both Mr. Deeds and this movie do well to make you laugh at the ridiculous things these kids say on screen."

 

I didn't see this one but it hung around my theater for quite a while so I don't think it was a flop. The movie did look really dumb though. I'll probably watch it if it ever makes it to Netflix.